Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.

maxalt:Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.

I agree. My best friend is gay, and he faces ridicule and teasing all the time. He worries about his future, and whether he will ever be able to get married without having to move to specific states and places.

maxalt:Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.

Exactly. The only question the government should ask is "Is everyone above the age of consent?" If yes then marry.

"We must destroy the myths, once and for all, shatter them. We must continue to speak out. And, most importantly, most importantly, every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends, if indeed they are your friends. You must tell your neighbors. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in. Once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and for all."

maxalt:Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.

maxalt:Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.

As long as you are legally capable of consenting to a contract (so no ducks or whatever that stupid argument is), yup.

abb3w:A more surprising finding is (technical) majority support in the South.

You know in the south we have in our cities (where a LOT of us live) young people, rich people, Democrats, liberals, the religiously unaffiliated, and well educated people (about half of which are also women).

Give us some time to outlive the previous generation and we can turn this place around. Just stop pointing it out so they don't notice!

Benevolent Misanthrope:DamnYankees: BunkoSquad: So we're about 3 years away from the right wing claiming they were the pioneers all along and blaming liberals for waiting so long to make it the law of the land.

Basically.

And about 300 from the Catholics saying they never taught against it and it was only mistaken priests and misinterpretation of what the Church really taught that caused the trouble.

/came out during the Reagan years - never thought I'd see the day.//gay-bashing was expected, at least I wasn't raped or killed///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Boils down to it: marriage equality is about freedom of religion and equal access under the law. Two principles that the Republican Party should be standing up for. This should be a Republican issue. It should have been a while ago. Save for the Religious Right getting their cash into greedy paws, and turning the party into a sham party of "values" that ignores to corruption, and the hypocrisy of their own members, but screams like 1st Graders going "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!" when someone else gets caught doing the SAME damn things that their own have been caught for. Stunningly silent on the sham marriages that some are in, stunningly silent about their own children, their own affairs, and pretending to care that someone that they know is gay, when it comes down to it, they don't. They don't care, because it's only an issue to the same folks who fret that Catholics and Jews might have better sex lives as well. Or pagans. Or Buddhists. Or atheists. Because all they care about is what OTHER people are doing. Rather than focusing on their own damn families.

My Grandma had a term for such folks, and a lot of scathing remarks as a good KC lady, "Nosey Nellies." She had little stomach for folks who decried what they saw from a keyhole. None of you gottverdammt business, unless folks are not consenting, or are getting hurt. You want to limit marriage within YOUR OWN church? Go ahead. Go to town with that. I support that 100%. Please, take care of your own flock. Don't like it? Don't eat it. Worked when you were five, it still works today. Of course the correlary is to never mind what other folks have on their own damn plates. Take care of your own family, and let other folks mind their own. Let Methodists deal with their own issues. Let Catholics do their thing. Let Muslims do their thing. Let Unitarians and Buddhists take care of their own damn business, and stop poking your nose where it isn't needed or wanted.

It's rude. And that is the one sin that Grandma could not abide. You can disagree, you can not recognize such marriages within your own church, but you let other churches and atheists and other faiths decide on their own as well. You don't know how to tell your kids that someone got married at a church you don't attend? That is none of my damn business. It's not really my concern.

Folks need to get over this desire to inject themselves in other folks' lives--especially if you want to cry "FREEEEEDOM" from the top of every tower. Let folks live their lives, and if you don't know how to tell your kids that two women got married, ponder on how you tell them that The Rock is half black, like the President. Get over yourselves you cupcakes. Stop looking for everyone else to massage your gottverdammt egos, and censor themselves because you can't join the conversation because it's "icky."

You know what's icky? Not being able to marry someone you love, someone you want to spend your life with, because some busybody who doesn't even attend your church has a problem with it. That's not "icky" that's against our freedom of religion, it's against equal access under the law, and for all the "Great Patriots" who scream about this, ponder on that. You nosy bastiches.

HighOnCraic:maxalt: Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.

Why do you hate marriages performed by justices of the peace?

I think as a matter of love and companionship that the government needs to keep their collective noses to themselves. One more thing I can not think of very many things I hate other than like child molesters and such.

Snapper Carr:maxalt: Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.

As long as you are legally capable of consenting to a contract (so no ducks or whatever that stupid argument is), yup.

maxalt:HighOnCraic: maxalt: Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.

Why do you hate marriages performed by justices of the peace?

I think as a matter of love and companionship that the government needs to keep their collective noses to themselves. One more thing I can not think of very many things I hate other than like child molesters and such.

So what about people who don't want to get married in a church? Are they stuck with relying on ship captains?

BunkoSquad:So we're about 3 years away from the right wing claiming they were the pioneers all along and blaming liberals for waiting so long to make it the law of the land.

3 years? Nah. I bet they've already written up the narrative to pretend it was conservatives fighting for the rights of LBGTQ all along, in case DOMA is stuck down by the Supreme Court. Just like how the day hours after the election they decided to play the "party of inclusion" to Latinos, and how they fantasize that MLK was a conservative.

Conservatives: perpetually revising history to make themselves look good.